The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Ringshill Care Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Sallowbush Road, Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, PE29 7AE (01480) 411762

Provided and run by:
Ringdane Limited

All Inspections

2 June 2016

During a routine inspection

Ringshill Care Home is registered to provide accommodation and nursing care for up to 87 people. At the time of our inspection there were 52 people living at the service. The service is located in the town of Huntingdon close to local shops, amenities and facilities. The service has two storeys which people can access by stairs or a passenger lift.

This unannounced inspection took place on 2 June 2016.

The service had a manager in post but they were not yet registered as a registered manager. The previous registered manager left in October 2014. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff had been trained in the identification and reporting about any, or potential incident of harm. People’s assessed needs were met by sufficient staff who responded promptly to people’s requests for assistance.

Satisfactory pre-employment checks were undertaken to help ensure that staff were deemed suitable to work at, and care for, people using the service.

People’s medicines were administered and managed safely. Staff were trained and assessed as competent to ensure their standards of medicines administration was safe. Staff were supported with an effective induction process until they were confident to work more independently

Risk assessments to help safely support people with risks to their health were in place and these were up-to-date and reviewed according to the risk each person presented.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. The manager and staff were knowledgeable about when an assessment of people’s mental capacity was required. Appropriate applications had been made by the manager to lawfully deprive people of their liberty. Any person’s restrictions on their liberty were in the least restive way.

People were offered choices of the foods and drinks they preferred and they had sufficient quantities including those people who required a soft food or pureed diet. This included a choice of appropriate diets for those people at an increased risk of malnutrition, dehydration or weight loss. People‘s individual health care needs were identified and met.

People’s care and health needs were met by staff in a compassionate way. People and if necessary their relatives were involved in the review of their/their family members individual care plans.

People were provided with information on accessing independent advocacy if any person required this support.

People were given various opportunities to help identify and make key changes or suggestions about any aspects of their care. A complaints process was in place which people had used and their concerns had been responded to.

A range of effective audit and quality assurance procedures were in place. The manager saw innovation as something that was a day to day ambition. People, relatives, friends, volunteers and charities were involved in developing the service. Updates to people’s care was shared through a range of forums including residents’, managers’ and staff meetings.

30 July 2015

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 13 February 2015. A breach of four legal requirements was found. These were in relation to the care and welfare of people, the safety and suitability of the premises, the security of people’s records and the assessment and management of the quality of the service.

After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet the legal requirements in relation to the care and welfare of people, the safety and suitability of the premises, the security of people’s records and quality assurance checks.

We undertook this unannounced focused inspection on 30 July 2015 to check that the provider had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements. We found that the provider had followed their plan which they had told us would be completed by the 30 June 2015 and legal requirements had been met.

This report only covers our findings in relation to this topic. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Ringshill Care Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Ringshill Care Home is a two storey building located on the outskirts of Huntingdon. The home provides accommodation for up to 87 people who require nursing and personal care. At the time of our inspection there were 54 people living at the home accommodated in single occupancy rooms. The home is split in three main units where people are cared for according to their assessed care or nursing needs.

The home did not have a registered manager in post. The current manager who had worked at the home since March 2015 was in the process of applying to become a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Action had been taken regarding the care and welfare of people. Staff respected people’s dignity and privacy and provided care in a compassionate and sensitive manner

Action had also been taken regarding the safety and suitability of the premises. Staff had attended training and people were protected from hazardous areas and substances.

Action had also taken regarding the auditing and quality of care provided. The provider had effective quality assurance processes and procedures in place to improve, if needed, the quality and safety of people’s support and care. Actions had been taken to identify, manage and improve the management of people’s wound care. Regular checks had been completed by managers in all areas of the service to ensure that the standards of care provided were up to the required standard.

Action had also taken regarding the safety and security of people’s care records. People’s care records were held securely. Staff respected people’s confidential information.

13 February 2015

During a routine inspection

This unannounced inspection took place on 13 February 2015.

At our previous inspection in 29 April 2013 the provider was not in breach of any of the regulations that we assessed.

Ringshill Care Home is a two storey building located on the outskirts of Huntingdon. The home provides accommodation for up to 87 people who require nursing and personal care. At the time of our inspection there were 58 people living at the home accommodated in single occupancy rooms. The home is split into four main units where people are cared for according to their assessed care or nursing needs.

The home did not have a registered manager in post. The current manager who had worked at the home since November 2014 was in the process of applying to become a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us they were safe living at the home. We found that there were a sufficient number of suitably qualified and trained staff employed and that the provider had a robust recruitment process in place to ensure that only the right staff were employed.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. We found that the provider and staff were knowledgeable about when a request for a DoLS would be required. We found that appropriate applications to lawfully deprive some people of their liberty had been submitted to the local authority (Supervisory body). Procedures were in place to monitor people’s safety to ensure that, when required, people were only deprived of their liberty when this was lawful. People who had limited capacity to make decisions were supported with their care and support needs where this had been assessed as being in their best interests.

Staff did not always respect people’s dignity and privacy at all times. Care was not always provided by staff in a caring and compassionate way. People did not have to wait more than a few minutes for their call bells to be answered.

People’s care records provided staff with detailed and appropriate information to care for people in the right way. However, support for people’s hobbies and interests was limited. This meant that people were at an increased risk of not being provided with stimulation that was meaningful to them.

Health risk assessments were in place to ensure that people received appropriate care in relation to their healthcare needs. People were supported to access a range of health care professionals. This included GP and community nursing services.

People were provided with, and had a choice of varied menus based upon a range of options. There was a sufficient quantity of food and drinks available for people at all times.

Information was provided for people on how to make a complaint and staff knew how to respond to reported complaints and concerns. Action was taken to address people’s concerns and to prevent any potential for recurrence. Information regarding Independent Mental Capacity Advocacy (IMCA) services were displayed in the home for people who lacked capacity.

The provider had quality assurance processes and procedures in place to improve, if needed, the quality and safety of people’s support and care. However, the provider had not identified the issues we found during our inspection and this placed people at risk of inappropriate care. People were provided with a variety of ways on how they could comment about the quality of their care.

We found a number of breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

29 April 2013

During a routine inspection

During our inspection of Ringshill Care Home we found that people and their relatives were involved in decisions taken about their care and support. One person told us, 'They are very kind here and look after me'. Another person told us, 'My {relative} is only here for a few weeks, but everything has been fine and the staff have kept us up to date with everything'.

We found that care plans were current and reflected the needs of people living in the home. Staff demonstrated a good understanding and knowledge of the care and support people required.

A local safeguarding policy for vulnerable adults was in place and staff had undertaken training. Information was available for people who lived in the home, their families and staff informing them of how to safeguard people from abuse and raise any concerns.

Procedures were in place which ensured that people using the service received their medication appropriately and staff had undertaken training.

There were regular ongoing training sessions in place to ensure that staff safely delivered care and support to people.

The provider had a system in place to check that people were satisfied with the service. This included a written questionnaire, which was sent to people each year, various monitoring checks on a number of aspects of the service.

14 May 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with a number of people who used the service and those who were able to tell us their views about the home had positive things to say. One person told us that, " Staff are now better giving me my tablets at the time I want them." Another person said, "They (the staff) look after me well here."

Social care professionals also had positive views about the standard of care and service provided at the home. They told us that progress had been made to improve both the safety and quality of care provided to people living at Ringshill Care Home. This included how staff engaged with people in a meaningful and caring way.

7 February 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

People we spoke with had positive comments to make about their experience of living at Ringshill Care Home. All of them told us that they felt that their support, care and treatment needs were being met. One of the people indicated that, since our last visit to the home in October 2011, things had, "Improved all along" (meaning the standard of care and standard of service provision had improved).

They also told us that they liked the food and were enjoying their lunch of meat and vegetables. One person added that they always had a drink of juice/squash or water that they could easily help themselves to.

People said that they were satisfied with how the home supported them with their medication.

Each of the people we spoke with also had positive comments to make about how the staff looked after them and they felt, "Safe" in their care. One person summarised this, saying that they were, "Being looked after well".

12 October 2011

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We received a mix of positive and negative views from people who use the service about the care that they receive. One person said that they had found improvements in how their care needs were being met although another person told us that they wanted someone to talk to or be taken out of their room. They said that their days spent in their bedroom were long and they described to us their sense of futility.

In respect of their food, one person said that they enjoyed their lunch whereas another person indicated to us that, if they were supported more with their lunch time meal, they would have been able to eat it with their cutlery, rather than being left to use their fingers to pick up their food from the plate before eating it.

22 September 2011

During an inspection in response to concerns

One of the people we spoke with said that they were satisfied with their care. They now received the support, care and attention that they needed. They were also happy with the food as hot meals were served to them, for breakfast, lunch and evening meals.

31 August and 7 September 2011

During an inspection in response to concerns

People we spoke with provided a variety of different views about the service provided at Ringshill Care Home.

One person said that they felt frustrated with the way that they were cared for and considered that they had had enough of the poor care. They said that they felt their care needs were not being adequately met and they expressed their level of frustration to us.

One person advised that, although they liked their room, they said that they felt the re-decoration of it was overdue: it had not been decorated since they had moved into the home two years ago.

People told us that some of the staff were difficult to understand when English was not their first language. A visitor said they felt that people with dementia, especially, would not be able to understand what was said to them when spoken to by some of these staff.

13 December 2010 and 14 April 2011

During an inspection in response to concerns

We received a mixture of positive and negative comments from people who use the service.

Some people said that they were not actively consulted in making decisions about their support, care and treatment.

One of the people with whom we spoke said that they had no concerns about their care, whilst one other person, who said that the care had not met their individual support and complex needs, described their experience of the service as 'poor'.

Most people told us they were happy with the arrangements that the home makes for their medicines but one person said they were not given a choice of whether to look after their medicines themselves or not. Another person told us that they were sometimes given their night time medication later than they wanted it.

One of the people said that the staff 'are nice here' and they 'liked' the staff.

One of the people whom we spoke said they had confidence in the knowledge and ability of some, but not all, of the care staff.